Thursday, May 24, 2012

Which reminds of something else that’s disappointing ... The New York Yankees are supposed to epitomize class. But with the arguable exception of Derek Jeter’s appearances still announced by the (now) disembodied voice of Bob Sheppard, there is almost nothing classy about Yankee Stadium. The Yankees could have afforded to eschew advertisements on the outfield walls, but they didn’t. They could have jettisoned “YMCA”, but they didn’t. They could have built something in the grand tradition of the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building or the Brooklyn Bridge or any of a dozen other New York City landmarks, but they didn’t. Yankee Stadium’s like a school in summer.

The big blue letters say Yankee Stadium, but otherwise you could be almost anywhere. There’s something special about Yankee Stadium because the New York Yankees do play there and, as the franchise wins more championships, this new building will naturally accrue atmosphere and mystique, weighty with emotion and history.

Now, though? The New York Yankees and the local citizenry spent more than a billion dollars on a wasted opportunity.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Wait a minute... they're STILL doing that? For every Jeter PA? I remember reading about it but I thought it was a one-off. Wow, that's creepy.

Years ago, Sheppard missed a few games and Jeter said he never wanted anyone other than Sheppard to announce him at home, so Sheppard recorded the introduction for him, and he's used it ever since when Sheppard wasn't there.

Really? I always thought that was a simple and classy way of keeping Sheppard's memory alive. Is it creepy to use a Nirvana song as your intro music before your at-bat?

Neyer's right, the Stadium's pretty antiseptic. But I also think if any new stadiums that were recently built sticks around for 50+ years, all the slick, corporate stuff we're complaining about will become charming little quirks.

I actually thought that the stadium as a whole is pretty neat. The Yankee museum is cool, the concourse is around as grand as you'd expect a Yankee Stadium concourse to be (although due to the overall blandness it's a little like being in an airport), it looks good from the outside, etc. The problem is, it's really nothing special to actually watch a game. The Yankees of all teams could have built the grandest cathedral to baseball that ever existed but instead it's just... meh. It's pretty much as if the team said "hey, we know that you'll come to see the team even if we play in the new Veteran's Stadium, so... welcome to the new Veteran's Stadium, suckers."

Granted that my trip was jaundiced by my own stupidity (being a native Seattle-ite I didn't apply the suntan lotion because where I live the sun is an occasional beauty to behold, not a skin-cancer-causing blight and as a result I got a MASSIVE sunburn across my face and legs that lasted all the next week) but it simply doesn't compare with a place like Safeco Field. It also, to its credit, doesn't compare with the truly craptacular places to watch games like the Kingdome.

I have not been to NYS, but hafta says I find Safeco quite meh (no accounting for taste, of course). I think the reason M's fans love it is that any park is Field of Dreams compared to the Kingdome, but on its own, the Safe is forgettable.

As Rob Neyer writes, NYS is just a poor replica of OYS in extra glass and concrete. Maybe that is what passes for "tradition."

FTFA:

It's not that the stadium isn't distinctive. Not exactly. Visiting, you do realize you're in the home of the New York Yankees. There are those giant blue letters, both atop the main entrance and the big display board beyond left-center field. There are the blue seats, and the matte-black hitter's background, just like in the old yard. And of course there's still the frieze (which technically isn't a frieze, but whatever).

But while all of those things do echo the club's previous home next door, they have the odd effect of diminishing the new place. For one thing, few (if any) of those things were actually pleasing. Ballpark seats should be green, as should hitter's backgrounds. That "frieze" is merely tacked-on ornamentation. They're still playing Kate Smith singing "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch. For heaven's sake, the grounds crews still performs its little "YMCA" routine.

So they kept all of those things ... and yet they're all smaller now. There aren't as many seats, the hitter's background isn't as large, the "frieze" is less noticeable, and even Kate Smith's voice somehow seems tinnier, less imposing and dramatic. Why bother, then? [Emphasis added]

Admitting to a completely jaundiced view of New York in general, I've always felt (in my 30 years of baseball fandom) that the Yankees and their fans think their the epitome of Class, but that they're actually the epitome of Klassy. And a significant portion of them pronounce the word "epee-tome".

Well, I thought it was my rapist wit, but you say it however you want.

From my part of flyover country, the view of New York is loud, obnoxious, and overly impressed with itself. If NYS was the same way, I wouldn't be surprised. I agree with the general sentiment that it would have been awesome if they had made the 21st Century version of the Palace of the Fans.

My only frame of reference is television but the new place definitely lacks. Every game I watch makes me think I missed a 3 hour rain delay. It's awkward to watch a game with so few fans behind home plate and the new place doesn't seem to hold the sound as well as the old place. Instead of constant hum with a true burst of noise at something meaningful there is this very generic cheering sound.

The same thing happened in Boston when they replaced the Garden with the Fleet Center (now TD Garden). It's not that it can't get loud but there is something very different about the atmosphere and the sound in the new place.

No. A sizable faction of New York Yankees fans want their team to epitomize class. I realized this the day I got into an extended argument with a fan who insisted that even Paul O'Neill was classy. The fan seemed too eager to believe that there was no component of Yankeedom that was not classy. And I've seen it with lots of Yankees fans. (Few Yankees fans on this site, and none of the regular Yankees-fan Primates, FWIW.)

Rabid fans of any team will look at their franchise and players through rose-colored glasses. They will believe their team is somehow morally superior to others. This happens with all teams. But I never see the specific obsession with a team being "classy" except among Yankees fans.

Really? I always thought that was a simple and classy way of keeping Sheppard's memory alive.

Maybe not creepy, but weird-bordering-on-creepy. When Jeter insisted on it, I idly wondered how the people who thought it was classy would have reacted if A-Rod had done the same thing. I suspect it would have been sneered at, like it was an example of there being another set of rules for Rodriguez, or him being all about himself rather than part of the team.

(Inherent bias alert: I liked hearing a few snippets of Carl Beane's voice when the Red Sox used them at Fenway in the days after his death, but do think it will be creepy if it lasts much past the All-Star break.)

I can't really compare the new Yankee Stadium to the old one, because I've only been to each once, and the old one in its last year, but I did find it weird how minor-league it seemed at times, with the giveaways between innings and such, while the actual building reminded me less of a ballpark than an airport.

I go to lots of A's games in their allegedly unusable stadium, and a few Giants games. I prefer the A's stadium in most respects. It is plain concrete and plastic, no carpeting or glass enclosed concourses with gourmet restaurants. There is too much "rah rah" from the Giants PA person for my tastes and at night the thin horizontal scoreboard strip is overwhelmingly bright and distracting. There are also a lot less idiots at A's games, them not being trendy like the Giants. In general I find Oakland to offer a more relaxing and baseball oriented experience.

I remember when they first did the YMCA thing and it was sort of charming and funny that you had the cleaning crew doing this unexpected silly thing while they worked. Heck, the crew even liked doing it, being the center of attention. Well, that had a shelf life of about a month maybe. I swear to God these guys look miserable doing it now like they're some cover band doing the 4 billionth version of that crappy song "You Had a Bad Day". Neyer is right on. This #### needs to end.

Let me make the obligatory remark that "OYS" was so heavily rebuilt in the 1970s that it almost qualified as one of the Vet/Riverfront/Three Rivers era stadiums itself. It was a concrete-and-plastic affair, where you sat farther from the field than in the 1920s Stadium or than in Fenway or Wrigley.

The Middle YS was the only one I knew, and I loved it in many ways, but it was not really that venerable.

From my part of flyover country, the view of New York is loud, obnoxious, and overly impressed with itself.

In my coastal enclave, we view flyover country as passive agressive, thin-skinned, and overly impressed with itself.

And you're both right.

I haven't been to NYS, but I thought with a billion bucks they'd do something grand and interesting, or at least bold like the Jerry Dome in Dallas. I can't think of anything about NYS that distinguishes it from any other new ballpark. I'm not saying it has to have gimmick like Tal's Hill or that Miami Home Run Monstrosity, but it really should have been some kind of engineering, architectural or artistic marvel and it just looks like a slightly nicer Citizens Bank Ballpark. I mean, its ####### New York. Build something epic.

I go to lots of A's games in their allegedly unusable stadium, and a few Giants games. I prefer the A's stadium in most respects. It is plain concrete and plastic, no carpeting or glass enclosed concourses with gourmet restaurants. There is too much "rah rah" from the Giants PA person for my tastes and at night the thin horizontal scoreboard strip is overwhelmingly bright and distracting. There are also a lot less idiots at A's games, them not being trendy like the Giants. In general I find Oakland to offer a more relaxing and baseball oriented experience.

QFT.
Just an all-around friendlier, more-fun atmosphere at A's games. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper, even including BART fare across the Bay.

It's way too expensive, but that's my only real complaint. A lot, lot easier to move around in than the old park. I've been to four games this season and have enjoyed them all from the second-to-last row of the upper deck, but then it's very convenient for me since I live off of the 4/5/6.

Kate Smith thing is dumb (America the Beautiful is lots better anyway). I like YMCA because I'm a dork (though they do look miserable). And they definitely no longer play Cotton-Eye Joe, so this point is moot.

I have never once heard a single person say "epeetome."

New Yorkers are a diverse bunch, just like flyover folks, about whom I will not further generalize (because what's the point? We love our homes).

I mean, its ####### New York. Build something epic.

Agreed. It could be a lot cooler but I have a fine time when I go to this one. However, the Yanks are not the most forward-thinking org. :/

I also prefer the Oakland feel. I grew up going to games at Shea so shitty architecture doesn't really detract from my experience, not nearly as much as having some stupid kid announce the lineups does. Sparse crowds mean I can stretch out and enjoy a quiet game, which I love.

I absolutely hate the empty seats near home plate and the moat. I've been several times to high-demand games in good weather, and the place was packed -- except for those seats. What an absurdity. And overall, Neyer is right, the place is so-so at best. What a missed opportunity.

Still, taking the subway to a game up there is an awful lot of fun. I pity people who have to take a car.

I go to lots of A's games in their allegedly unusable stadium, and a few Giants games. I prefer the A's stadium in most respects. It is plain concrete and plastic, no carpeting or glass enclosed concourses with gourmet restaurants. There is too much "rah rah" from the Giants PA person for my tastes and at night the thin horizontal scoreboard strip is overwhelmingly bright and distracting. There are also a lot less idiots at A's games, them not being trendy like the Giants. In general I find Oakland to offer a more relaxing and baseball oriented experience.

I go along with this but with three exceptions. 1) It's easier to enter the Oakland Airport than the Oakland Coliseum. Since 09/11/2001, two of the Coliseum's six entry gates have remained closed. Two of the four entry points currently in use are small gates near the BART station ramp. They herd most of their patrons into two slow moving gates for security checks whether or not they are carrying anything. One would think getting into the park for games that seldom see attendance over 20,000 would be a breeze -- not so. The A's make it terribly inconvenient to attend their games. Even if you arrive an hour before the first pitch, you can expect to wait in a long line.

2) Once the Raiders start playing in August, the field is torn to bits and there is no way to ignore it. The field is so beautiful from April through July but an eyesore after that.

3) If one sits in the bleachers one has to trek halfway around the stadium to get a beer for just about any weeknight game not involving the Yankees or Red Sox. Would it kill them to open one of the concession stands behind the bleachers?

There's not much the A's can do about #2 so long as they share the Coliseum with the Raiders. #1 & #3 are cheapskate ploys typical of every owner they've had in Oakland except for Walter Haas.

I also prefer the Oakland feel. I grew up going to games at Shea so shitty architecture doesn't really detract from my experience, not nearly as much as having some stupid kid announce the lineups does. Sparse crowds mean I can stretch out and enjoy a quiet game, which I love.

Shea was ugly, but its worst feature was its multi-purposeness, which merely ensured that no baseball attendee could be close to the action. The endless upper decks kept slanting farther and farther back, too. We went to a packed-house Dodgers twin bill (1965, I think, and a cold windy day in May), and I think we were closer to the jetliners coming out of LaGuardia than to the field.

Well, [the grounds crew doing "YMCA"] had a shelf life of about a month maybe. I swear to God these guys look miserable doing it now like they're some cover band doing the 4 billionth version of that crappy song "You Had a Bad Day".

But back to serious ballpark talk - particularly how we would spend other people's money - I do wish that the New YS was something bold and architecturally innovative. The Yankees are undeniably THE American Baseball Club, and I wish that their ballpark was The American Ballpark for the new era. Sounds like it isn't so. Just from TV, it looks more like Marlins Field is.

But back to serious ballpark talk - particularly how we would spend other people's money - I do wish that the New YS was something bold and architecturally innovative.

I like New YS, and prefer it to the Old YS (although I do miss the separated bleacher section, sitting there in Old YS was always fun). But, really, what kind of revolutionary architecture could they have used? They wanted fewer seats because it drives up ticket prices, with more luxury suites and wider concourses, and that's exactly what they got. I think the footprint of New YS is significantly larger than the footprint of Old YS. I think the concources and entrance gates are as impressive as any I've seen in an MLB park. What more could they have reasonably done?

I like New YS, and prefer it to the Old YS (although I do miss the separated bleacher section, sitting there in Old YS was always fun). But, really, what kind of revolutionary architecture could they have used? They wanted fewer seats because it drives up ticket prices, with more luxury suites and wider concourses, and that's exactly what they got. I think the footprint of New YS is significantly larger than the footprint of Old YS. I think the concources and entrance gates are as impressive as any I've seen in an MLB park. What more could they have reasonably done?

I don't know, that's for the creative minds of architects, right? Look at the portfolio of Populous, particularly their international projects which blow their bland domestic projects out of the water.

Well, they could have made the stadium itself feel less like a brutalist 1960s era park and more like Shibe or heck, the Polo Grounds. Again, I point to Safeco Field, with its wrought iron-looking retractable roof and the cool architecture. I am no architect but man... New York City has a huge, huge bar that it's set already. Why not set something up with the Chrysler Building and make the new stadium look like a golden Art Deco masterpiece? Would that not be "classy" enough? Okay, then do what not just Seattle did but also Baltimore and Cleveland, which is to model it after an old-time stadium, but with the new perks and, should they desire, the large concourse.

Or if they were really wanting to be avant-garde, bring in a modern architect to, I don't know, make it into Fallingwater Stadium or something. New YS reeks of "we did all that we had to do" instead of "we have built a park which will stand up for the next 75 years".

Neyer also knocked the previous incarnation of Yankee Stadium for being predominantly blue rather than green - which really seems like a matter of personal preference rather than a matter of right or wrong. Certainly nothing would break with Yankee tradition more than changing the whole color scheme of the Stadium. Dumb idea.

Having never lived in the NYC area, my trips to the Stadium are infrequent, and I have yet to see the new version in person. However, Monument Park seems like a lesser version of its predecessor. Hopfully, they'll work on that.

In any event, the new Stadium achieved its primary goals - look the same on TV and produce greater revenues (which will only increase if/when they find the right price point for the seats right behind home plate).

Neyer also knocked the previous incarnation of Yankee Stadium for being predominantly blue rather than green - which really seems like a matter of personal preference rather than a matter of right or wrong. Certainly nothing would break with Yankee tradition more than changing the whole color scheme of the Stadium. Dumb idea.

Yeah, I have no idea where he gets the stupid "seats should be green" idea. Is that even the most common seat color in the bigs?

Why not set something up with the Chrysler Building and make the new stadium look like a golden Art Deco masterpiece? Would that not be "classy" enough? Okay, then do what not just Seattle did but also Baltimore and Cleveland, which is to model it after an old-time stadium, but with the new perks and, should they desire, the large concourse.

That would have been amazing. I haven't been yet, but I do get the impression from hearing people talk and seeing it on television that the only reason NYS is notable is because (1) the Yankees play there and (2) it looks like OYS. Anyone who's watched any science fiction knows that cloning never ends well!

Yeah, I have no idea where he gets the stupid "seats should be green" idea. Is that even the most common seat color in the bigs?

9 of the 14 AL parks are green. This is just based on a fairly quick Google search so maybe there is more diversity of color at some places. Fenway is the only one I know intimitely and that varies depending on seating type (bleacher - green, grandstand blue, box - red)

uhh, you just linked to a picture of Yankee stadium without ads on the outfield walls....

Wait, does your browser zap Gem and Ballantine products?

Yes, I know that those aren't technically the "outfield" walls, but OTOH those ads towered over the bleachers behind the OF from LF to RF, they were seen by everyone who wasn't sitting right in front of them, and they were a lot bigger than any "outfield" wall ads could ever be.

I agree with YR. If you want to insult the Yankees, say they're as classy as Jimmy Hart.

Yes, I know that those aren't technically the "outfield" walls, but OTOH those ads towered over the bleachers behind the OF from LF to RF, they were seen by everyone who wasn't sitting right in front of them, and they were a lot bigger than any "outfield" wall ads could ever be.

Shea Stadium - Orange and Blue
Dolphins Stadium - Bright ####### Orangish Red
I think Veterans Stadium was mostly red, but added a lot of blue in the 90s. Three Rivers Stadium was almost entirely red and the new football field is almost entirely yellow.

part of the ... er ... "charm" of the Old YS bleachers was the mixing between the families (always lots of kids there, particularly in LF) and the hardhat types who would get plastered before the game. Yes, on more than one occasion I heard parents instruct their kids to be careful not to step in vomit.

I never thought about seat color before. Is there a list of this somewhere?

One of the most aesthetically pleasing features of the pre-Dodger Stadium / DC Stadium ballparks was that all the seats in every park were a uniform "stadium green" (dark green) color. Some of the ones that hung around modified that uniformity in their later years (Tiger Stadium, for one, changed to a mix of blue and red), but up through 1961 they were all as monochromatic as one of Henry Ford's Model T cars. Not only did this "stadium green" give these cathedrals that "feel right" look, but in an era where many seats were empty, it also provided the ideal background for following the batted ball from the lower deck. The summer I graduated from high school (1962) I was invited to a Senators' morning tryout camp at DC Stadium (later RFK), and standing in right field with an empty 3B grandstand with salmon-colored seats in the background, it wasn't at all easy to pick up fly balls that were headed in my direction. It would have been much easier in Griffith Stadium, with its dark green seats in every direction facing the plate.

Shea Stadium - Orange and Blue
Dolphins Stadium - Bright ####### Orangish Red
I think Veterans Stadium was mostly red, but added a lot of blue in the 90s. Three Rivers Stadium was almost entirely red and the new football field is almost entirely yellow.

Coors is green.

Riverfront had different colors in different levels. The upper deck was red, I think lower was blue, with a green level and a yellow level in between. Matched your ticket color, so (1) you knew where to go, and (2) ushers could easily spot interlopers. Long homers were referred to by the level they reached, with only a few "red-seaters" in the stadium's history.

3) If one sits in the bleachers one has to trek halfway around the stadium to get a beer for just about any weeknight game not involving the Yankees or Red Sox. Would it kill them to open one of the concession stands behind the bleachers?

Geez, given the markup on beer in the stadium, it can't take that many sales to make having the stand open profitable. I guess beer drinkers drink regardless, so its less marginal profit?

Riverfront had different colors in different levels. The upper deck was red, I think lower was blue, with a green level and a yellow level in between. Matched your ticket color, so (1) you knew where to go, and (2) ushers could easily spot interlopers. Long homers were referred to by the level they reached, with only a few "red-seaters" in the stadium's history.

I grew up in Cincinnati, so (1) I thought this was awesome and (2) assumed that every stadium everywhere did this, in the same color combination.

One of the most aesthetically pleasing features of the pre-Dodger Stadium / DC Stadium ballparks was that all the seats in every park were a uniform "stadium green" (dark green) color. Some of the ones that hung around modified that uniformity in their later years (Tiger Stadium, for one, changed to a mix of blue and red), but up through 1961 they were all as monochromatic as one of Henry Ford's Model T cars.

Is this true? My first major league game was at Candlestick Park in the early 60s. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I recall unpainted wooden seats.

One of the most aesthetically pleasing features of the pre-Dodger Stadium / DC Stadium ballparks was that all the seats in every park were a uniform "stadium green" (dark green) color. Some of the ones that hung around modified that uniformity in their later years (Tiger Stadium, for one, changed to a mix of blue and red), but up through 1961 they were all as monochromatic as one of Henry Ford's Model T cars.

Is this true? My first major league game was at Candlestick Park in the early 60s. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me but I recall unpainted wooden seats.

You may be right about that, but since Candlestick opened in 1960 that was in the same era as Dodger Stadium and D.C. Stadium, both of which opened in 1962. Prior to that, the only parks with ML debuts between 1933 and 1958 were Seals Stadium (dark green), the L.A. Coliseum (a football stadium with mostly benches back then), K.C.'s Municipal Stadium (dark green), Baltimore's Memorial Stadium (dark green lower deck, unpainted benches upper deck), and Milwaukee's County Stadium (still all dark green grandstands in the early 90's). And all the chairback seating in parks built between 1909 and 1932 was exclusively green.

i have been to the new yankee stadium several times and sat in different locaations.

it's clean. that's it.

folks have already covered the upper deck which is an outright disaster

the food is ridiculously overpriced and yes i have travelled a lot and know the difference between ballpark pricing and bizarro world pricing. and by overpriced i mean quality relative to price. huge gap.

the acoustics stink. the scoreboard stinks.

i tell you what it reminds me of is new york projects in the 60's when things were really mobbed up and the contractors would use the cheapest garbarge available slap on some paint or other shiny finish so something looked ok got you to sign off and then 4 months later you had leaks, peeling and a ####### mess on your hands.

it's like the steinbrenners got flimflammed by tony and sal's stadium construction company

by the way, i detest miller park too so don't think i am being anti-new york or anti-coast or some other bullshit

parks that have their #### together:

pnc (way ahead of the pack and if you have not been there you are a ####### moron and why am i talking to you?)
the san fran park (don't know who they have whored out the name to as of right now)
coors
the classics (fenway, wrigley)

functional but what was the point?

great american
the new st. louis stadium which along with being blah also suffers from being polluted by cardinal fans
citifield and the ushers are still rude what the hell is wrong with these people?

parks that need to go away and i will pay for the demolition heck i will help set the chargers:

miller park. weird shadows. sound awful. the half roof making it half outdoors. get the hell out of here
that dump in houston
arizona's ########
comiskey where you get killed either from walking the upper deck or in the parking lot

Thumbs up for PNC here, too. Aesthetically, a ballpark's siting almost can't be overstated; PNC, Camden, Coors, SF -- there's just a lot of value in having a strong sense of place while you're sitting in the park. The Nationals whiffed badly on this in what is otherwise a pretty decent park -- add a siting/orientation that includes views of monuments or something distinctly DC and it would make a big difference.

This video captures why NYS was a bad idea, and distills perfectly the energy that makes sports great and that no luxury suites or open concourses can replace. This is what tge Yankees pissed away forever...

Thumbs up for PNC here, too. Aesthetically, a ballpark's siting almost can't be overstated; PNC, Camden, Coors, SF -- there's just a lot of value in having a strong sense of place while you're sitting in the park. The Nationals whiffed badly on this in what is otherwise a pretty decent park -- add a siting/orientation that includes views of monuments or something distinctly DC and it would make a big difference.

The Nationals have almost nothing colorful about them, so why would the stadium be any different? The name, the uniform, the temporary park name, the colorless park are all as interesting as wonderbread.

The park was supposed to have views of the Capitol and Washington monument (and some of the RF Upper Deck seats do), but they added those awful parking structures instead.

The two parks I've been to this year – CBP and RBiA – have felt interchangeable in many ways. Arlington of course has no view of anything, because there's no there here. In Philly I had a view of a Holiday Inn.

When Dodger Stadium opened in 1962, the seats had about the same color scheme they do now. They are yellow (slightly different shades) in the bottom two decks and then two different shades of blue for the top two decks.

For a long time, it went yellow, orange, blue, and red. But when the Dodgers replaced all the seats a few years back, they went back to the old system.

IIRC, Roger Angell found the multicolored seats at Dodger Stadium very annoying when he was there for the 1963 World Series.

I don't know if there's any truth to it but a friend who works with commercial dyes once told me that green stadium seats are the norm for the same reason so many highway road signs are that color -- it fades less from exposure to the sun than other colors.